DCP makes this board

[_Ray A]

What may work better under such battle conditions is the warm sunlight of human kindness and the fresh air breeze of common sense.

Make sure you mention that to some of the self-appointed "hit men" on MAD. Like Selek.

[_moksha]

Apologists also apparently, do not post on "bottom feeder" sites such as this...

Collegeterrace does tend to make for a nutrient rich environment for plankton. Isn't that much better to think in positive terms?

[_Mudcat]

A person that climbed to the top of the mountain to see the wise man on top: "Wise Man, I am troubled. What is the center of the universe?"

Wise Man:"Daniel C. Peterson"

edit add...
wassup with this triflesome ad on my post. The inanity of it is killing me.
How do I disintegrate it?

[_Ray A]

My solo blog gets about 150 hits a day.

Come on, don't be so arrogant

[_moksha]

RFM gets 170,000+ hits per day.

Ray, how many hits per day does Beliefnet get?

[_harmony]

As I see it, the steely blade of academics and the strategic and logical thrust of apologia, are of little using in slicing through the emotive fog of rancor, prejudice, whining, complaining, mockery, denegration, and so for that too often are the weapon of choice for places such as this.

Problem is, both sides have their academics, both sides have their logic, both sides have their fogmakers, prejudices, whining, complaining, mockery, denegration, and so forth.

So neither side gets to claim the high ground. Here or elsewhere.

At least here, and elsewhere on the internet, conversation, discussion, and debate can take place. There is no debate in a book, no conversation in a conference presentation, no discussion in a Sunday School classroom. And if apologists want to keep up with the critics, they'd best be learning to use the tools of the internet: the bulletin board, the chat room, and the blog.

[_Ray A]

Ray, how many hits per day does Beliefnet get?

Not sure, Mok, I'll have to check it up.

[_wenglund]

As I see it, the steely blade of academics and the strategic and logical thrust of apologia, are of little using in slicing through the emotive fog of rancor, prejudice, whining, complaining, mockery, denegration, and so for that too often are the weapon of choice for places such as this.

Problem is, both sides have their academics, both sides have their logic, both sides have their fogmakers, prejudices, whining, complaining, mockery, denegration, and so forth.

So neither side gets to claim the high ground. Here or elsewhere.

At least here, and elsewhere on the internet, conversation, discussion, and debate can take place. There is no debate in a book, no conversation in a conference presentation, no discussion in a Sunday School classroom. And if apologists want to keep up with the critics, they'd best be learning to use the tools of the internet: the bulletin board, the chat room, and the blog.

If you are right about the emotive fog coming from both sides (to a point I would agree, though I don't think it close in terms of proportional distribution), that makes my point all the more salient. The foggy crags and battlegrounds of discussion boards such as this, are no place for apologetics.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_harmony]

If you are right about the emotive fog coming from both sides (to a point I would agree, though I don't think it close in terms of proportional distribution), that makes my point all the more salient. The foggy crags and battlegrounds of discussion boards such as this, are no place for apologetics.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Why do you say that? Do you think apologetic arguments are so fragile, they would not survive in an open forum? That they need protection? Do you think God is too fragile for modern life?

[_Ray A]

If you are right about the emotive fog coming from both sides (to a point I would agree, though I don't think it close in terms of proportional distribution), that makes my point all the more salient. The foggy crags and battlegrounds of discussion boards such as this, are no place for apologetics.

What that tells me, Wade, is that "apologetics" is only useful to you if you can sway the sheep back to the fold. But when faced with much stronger criticism, you want to evacuate the place and give it up as a lost cause.

If this is really your attitude, then you are not interested in serious debate, only swaying people back to your beliefs.